TABLE 2—
Ordered Logit Models Predicting Longevity, by Area of Residence and Gender: Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey, 1998–2002
| Urban | Rural | |||
| Men, OR (95% CI) | Women, OR (95% CI) | Men, OR (95% CI) | Women, OR (95% CI) | |
| Background characteristics | ||||
| Minority ethnicity (vs Han) | 1.40 (0.81, 2.41) | 0.96 (0.60, 1.55) | 1.04 (0.71, 1.53) | 0.67* (0.47, 0.96) |
| Childhood SESa (scored 0–5) | 1.10 (1.00, 1.21) | 1.19*** (1.08, 1.31) | 1.11 (0.99, 1.24) | 1.11 (1.00, 1.23) |
| Mother lived to ≥ 80 y (vs no) | 1.28* (1.01, 1.61) | 0.91 (0.73, 1.14) | 0.93 (0.74, 1.17) | 1.09 (0.87, 1.35) |
| Father lived to ≥ 80 y (vs no) | 1.16 (0.88, 1.52) | 1.29 (0.98, 1.70) | 1.18 (0.90, 1.55) | 1.23 (0.96, 1.57) |
| Socioeconomic status | ||||
| Education (vs none) | 0.74* (0.58, 0.96) | 0.74* (0.56, 0.99) | 0.87 (0.69, 1.09) | 0.66* (0.45, 0.96) |
| Occupation (vs agricultural) | 0.92 (0.70, 1.22) | 1.00 (0.77, 1.32) | 1.08 (0.80, 1.46) | 0.69 (0.43, 1.12) |
| Economically independent (vs not) | 0.71** (0.55, 0.92) | 0.41*** (0.29, 0.59) | 0.46*** (0.32, 0.66) | 0.57 (0.31, 1.05) |
| Social contact and support | ||||
| Married (vs not married) | 0.39*** (0.31, 0.49) | 0.14*** (0.09, 0.23) | 0.46*** (0.36, 0.57) | 0.20*** (0.13, 0.31) |
| Household size (1–6) | 1.09* (1.01, 1.17) | 1.08* (1.01, 1.16) | 1.00 (0.95, 1.06) | 0.99 (0.93, 1.04) |
| Proximate to children (vs not) | 1.22 (0.92, 1.63) | 0.87 (0.66, 1.15) | 1.14 (0.82, 1.60) | 1.06 (0.77, 1.47) |
| Religiously active (vs not) | 1.36 (0.98, 1.89) | 0.82 (0.64, 1.05) | 1.16 (0.83, 1.63) | 0.77* (0.60, 0.98) |
| Health behavior and diet | ||||
| Current or past smoker (vs never) | 0.71** (0.57, 0.89) | 0.88 (0.67, 1.14) | 0.65*** (0.52, 0.82) | 0.80 (0.59, 1.08) |
| Current or past drinker (vs never) | 1.09 (0.87, 1.36) | 1.02 (0.78, 1.34) | 1.09 (0.87, 1.36) | 1.30* (1.02, 1.66) |
| Eats vegetables (vs does not) | 0.57* (0.35, 0.95) | 0.47* (0.26, 0.85) | 0.90 (0.51, 1.59) | 0.64 (0.38, 1.08) |
| Health status | ||||
| ADL disabledb (vs no) | 2.06*** (1.58, 2.68) | 2.49*** (1.97, 3.14) | 2.24*** (1.71, 2.94) | 2.24*** (1.78, 2.84) |
| Cognitively disabledc (vs no) | 2.37*** (1.81, 3.11) | 2.50*** (2.01, 3.13) | 2.33*** (1.82, 2.99) | 2.06*** (1.67, 2.53) |
| Chronic diseased (vs no) | 0.71** (0.56, 0.89) | 0.54*** (0.43, 0.68) | 0.66*** (0.52, 0.84) | 0.80* (0.64, 0.99) |
| Psychological characteristics | ||||
| Looks at bright side (vs does not) | 1.16 (0.86, 1.58) | 1.02 (0.78, 1.33) | 1.16 (0.89, 1.53) | 1.30* (1.02, 1.66) |
| Feels anxious (vs does not) | 0.82 (0.51, 1.31) | 0.97 (0.64, 1.46) | 0.87 (0.57, 1.34) | 0.86 (0.62, 1.20) |
| Feels lonely (vs does not) | 0.86 (0.56, 1.31) | 1.03 (0.71, 1.51) | 1.00 (0.69, 1.45) | 0.98 (0.72, 1.33) |
Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; SES = socioeconomic status; ADL = activities of daily living.
aChildhood SES was scored from 0 to 5, with 1 point each if respondent was born in an urban area, got adequate medication, went to bed without hunger, both parents were alive at age 10 years, and father’s occupation was white collar.
bThe ADL measure was based on the Katz index scale, and respondents were categorized as ADL disabled if they needed help in 1 or more activities (bathing, dressing, indoor transferring, toileting, eating, and continence).21
cCognitive functioning was ascertained by using the Mini-Mental State Examination, which measured orientation, registration, attention, calculation, recall, and language.22 Persons scoring less than 24 were categorized as being cognitively impaired.22,23
dIndividuals were classified as having a chronic disease (coded 1) if they reported hypertension, a pulmonary disorder, heart attack, or cerebrovascular disease.
* P ≤ .05; **P ≤ .01; ***P ≤ .001.